COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. S C SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two references have been made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'A' (in short the 'Tribunal'). Since identical questions are involved, the two cases are taken up together for disposal. The common question referred for opinion of this Court is as follows:

(2.) Factual position which needs to be noted is as follows: Assessee is a partner in firm M/s. Regal Trading Corporation. Business activities of the firm consist of buying brass articles from the market, getting them nickled or silver plated from parties doing job work for the assessee and thereafter soldering and engraving such articles so as to make them fit for export as fancy articles to the foreign markets. As it was assessee's stand that the firm is an exporter of such goods, claim before the Revenue Authorities was that the capital of the assessee with the said firm is exempt under the provisions of Section 5(l)(xxxii) of the Act. Wealth-tax Officer opined that the firm was not carrying on any manufacturing process and, therefore, assessee is not entitled to relief claimed. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short the 'AAC') also rejected the claim. In appeal before the Tribunal, first the case of the assessee S.C. Sethi (WTR No. 15/82) was taken up. Tribunal recorded the following factual finding:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that Tribunal has recorded a finding which is not factually established by the assessee. It is stated that no final activity which made the articles fit for export pursuant to any process of manufacture or processing was undertaken. In spite of service of notice there is no appearance on behalf of the assesses.